It's real hard to have differently colored seats that aren't gonna just be overly bright and gaudy. I'm cool with the purposely dull greens and blues that most ballparks have. You also don't want them to stand out when the seats aren't filled in either.

Just pointing out an observation but that teal look on the blue jerseys has only happened on TV when they're at the Mets spring training ballpark. No clue why but I've seen the jerseys at every televised spring game and this only happens there in Port St Lucie. Probably has something to do with the TV cameras. I've also seen still pictures of those same games and the jerseys look blue again so it's definitely a TV thing for whatever reason. The first tweet is vs the Mets, as a comparison the second tweet is vs the Cardinals in Jupiter, Florida.

Just a thought... anyone ever realize they actually had 2 of that mid 00s green set? 2001-04 it was green but heavier on the black and 05-07 it had more emphasis on the green than the black but now with a little more touches of blue. The jerseys and wordmarks also were tweaked a bit as well. Just sayin because I think a lot of people forgot about this.

If this is really the direction they're heading there's almost no wrong choice there. Of course we can debate which ones would be best but they're all, finally, where the Padres should be headed. I think that's a big win for everyone.

This is exactly my point... this is why you start now and give the fanbase 2-3 years to buy the new stuff so that when they're hopefully competitive more fans are wearing the new gear.
Your idea of waiting until they're competitive and then throwing the new stuff on the fanbase there doesn't work either... if they did it that way the fans won't rush to buy the new stuff then either, they're actually more likely to be wearing the old stuff then as well because they haven't all had the time to get the new stuff.
I was at Fanfest... plenty of fans (actual Marlins fans mind you) have already bought the new stuff and that's with the team sucking now. Let this continue the next couple of seasons and you'll have more fans with the new stuff in 2021 than you would if you sprung it on the fanbase then.

It's not about the color of the webbing, it's just to show that there IS webbing there, that the glove doesn't have a hole in between the thumb and first fingers. So the point is to make the webbing a different color than the background because making it the same color as the background implies that there is an empty space there. Transparent is completely the opposite of what that part of the logo was intended to look like. "Something" has to be there.

Do that and you have a bunch of people wearing "the old stuff" when your team is good and you're trying to push the new stuff. It's best (from a marketing and promotional standpoint) to give the new rebrand time to filter in through the fanbase for a few seasons... that way when the team is hopefully good then you have more fans already wearing the new things. Let 2019, another losing season, be the year where the fans are wearing too much of the old stuff mixed in with the new stuff. You gotta grow the brand, not just spring it on the fans out of nowhere.

Not really. Not if the new ownership's plan works. The Astros changed their uniforms in 2013 and lost 110 games then lost like 90 something the next season but then won the World Series a few years later and now those Astros uniforms are associated with their first championship and their current run of great teams and a winning atmosphere.
The Marlins have the same concept in mind.
There are plenty of teams who have uniforms associated with winning teams that started on teams that stunk.
People "forget" about losing seasons the second the winning years come.

The two tone Nationals cap with the navy crown and the red bill has grown on me over the years but the all navy road cap from their early years is underrated. Though I can understand them wanting to inject more red into those navy-heavy early road uniforms.

Oh geez my bad with Portland and I'm great at geography. Total brain fart but yes you got my intended point. It's weird how "state" has to be added to Washington for us to know what we're talking about. You would think DC would be the outlier that needs to be thoroughly identified. Maybe over in Washington (state) they see it differently than we do and do the opposite?

Has there ever been a team in any sport in Washington state that went by "Washington"? To me any team that says Washington is from DC and any team from Washington uses the name of their city like Seattle or Portland.